The NYT backs President Obama's call to increase the minimum wage, although it wants the figure...

The NYT backs President Obama's call to increase the minimum wage, although it wants the figure raised further than Obama's "low-ball" proposal of $9/hour. "The argument that a higher wage will kill jobs has been debunked by a range of studies," while it also boosts productivity," the NYT writes. Over on Reuters, Reihan Salam calls the minimum wage "a poor solution," saying there are better, more targeted anti-poverty policies, such as tax credits.

I usually disagree with the "news" reported by the Times which is nothing more than extremist left-wing agitprop, but this time they are onto something. I've always thought that the law should require the minimum wage to be the average hourly billing rate of attorneys in a city. Probably in New York that would come to $200 an hour.

Why should attorneys like our current president and all our lawmakers live high off the hog while others suffer low wages? It's simple social justice.

If $200 an hour is too big a leap in one year, make it $100 this year and phase in the $200 next year.

Even liberal economists concluded a while back that raising the minimum wage will cost jobs. NYT is repeating the same old lie hoping that repeating it will somehow change reality. The fact is Obama is counting on the minimum wage not rising simply because small businesses will already be dealing with a major change to their cost structure with the enactment of Obamacare. Obamacare is written with small business incentives to cut hours, and lay off workers to avoid the higher cost structure. But plenty others will take the hit of higher healthcare insurance premiums or pay an annual fine per employee. Adding a new higher minimum wage to that is economic insanity. Obama wanted to make a feeble appearance of supporting a higher minimum while happily accepting it won't budge in either the Senate or the House.

Duude..... More than 50% of small businesses in the U.S. have less than 50 employees and therefore the Affordable Health Care Act adds zero cost to its structure. With health care costs approaching 19% of current GDP, which is already unsustainable, what is your suggestion? Status quo? Where the top 25% will be the ones that increasingly pay more than current costs through taxation to fund county hospitals. Requiring everyone to have health insurance is a personal responsibility issue. Should we have a full blown National Health Care Program? What are your thoughts?

NYT is a news source ?? Or is it part of the Democrat National group ?

Add the higher minimum wage to the new HCA an it's 30 hour work week and killing jobs will be huge.

Minimum wage jobs are not supposed to be living wage head of household jobs. There supposed to be starter jobs for the young. Do to the horrific destruction of wealth millions of seniors compete for these jobs.. A mushrooming effect has happened and bumping the rate higher or worse..tying it to an index... Wow.......

This shows that the great US Republic has become a run of the mill democracy.. The Founders knew that a democracy was as bad as a monarchy,but, in 2013 I'm not sure which we have. I'm leaning towards a monarchy under Obama.....

Walmart has 3-3.5% profit margins, and most grocery stores are also in the low single digits for profit margins. Raising their costs by increasing wages will do one of two things, either raise prices of other goods in the store to compensate, or lead to a faster adoption of self service checkout, eliminating the jobs entirely.

Bill Johnson, Heinz CEO, $100M in buyout??? That's enough to raise 50,000 workers $1/hr for a year...is anyone worried about the cost of Ketchup going up? HPQ has spent that amount on the last several CEOs and their stock has gone from $60 - $15??? Let's get a reign on the CEO / BofD musical chairs.

Many businesses want as low a labor cost as possible, because they see workers as an expense, and not as an asset. There is an idea of competitiveness, in that the lower the labor cost, then the greater the competitiveness. Taken to an extreme, a zero labor cost should be the most competitive structure. Unfortunately when you take worker spending out of an economy, then an economy does not expand.

Many middle income jobs disappeared due to globalization of workforces, and due to changes in technology that led to greater efficiency. Most of those lost jobs are not coming back. The attempt to create a longer term housing boom put 16 million people to work in construction, but when the boom went bust the majority of those jobs disappeared.

Elevating the lowest level of incomes is about as effective as elevating the highest levels of income. Neither will bring back middle income jobs that use to exist. A change in trade balance, or a change in technology that creates new demand, might change this path. So far real long lasting solutions are missing from the discussion, as the same tired push of self-interest take the lead in all discussions.

Raising the national minimum wage is a very bad idea. The minimum wage should be set locally, as the cost of living varies so much in the US from place to place. For example, the cost of living in the NYC metro area is around double the national average, while the cost of living in low cost of living areas might be 2/3 of the national average or less. Should the minimum wage in NYC be the same as in Memphis or Fayetteville, Ark.????? Perhaps in some economically depressed low cost of living places the minimum wage is already too high, while in NYC or LA it is much too low.